Grant Council, Library Board discuss proposed budget reduction, future funding
During a special meeting Monday, June 8, members of the Grant City Council and Grant Library Board met to discuss library operations, personnel and board responsibilities following a proposed $48,347 reduction in the library’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year.
The proposed cut would reduce library funding from approximately $148,000 to $99,910, a decrease of about one-third, as city officials transition library funding from franchise fees to property tax levy revenue.
The meeting opened with no public comment, followed by opening remarks from City Superintendent Derek Brueggeman.
Brueggeman spoke on a survey conducted by himself and City Clerk and Treasurer Jessie Faber on how other communities fund and budget their libraries. “We sent it to clerks and other city administrators and these are the responses we got back,” he said.
The council and library board were given a library budget and funding survey results chart showing second class city and village population, budget revenue and expenses, what source of funding they use, the funding amount, and the valuation. Some also included were employees and hours open.
“You’ll see listed Some of them are doing taxes, property tax with a levy. Some of them are interlocals (agreements), some of them have fees, some of them use donations and grants,”
There are only two other libraries that partially use utilities or franchise fees, most everyone on here does just the property tax, which would be the levy, and a lot of them have donations, fees, a library foundation, and interlocals with their county. Which we do have a small interlocal with our county.
He pointed to Wakefield, a community with a population of 1,522 and a valuation of $112 million, which funds its library at approximately $126,000 through property taxes.
In comparison, Grant, with a population of 1,197 and a taxable valuation of $95.1 million, currently funds its library at approximately $148,257 annually through franchise fee revenue.
“Wisner, their valuation is $106 million, to their $65,000 that they fund their library. The rest is sales tax, he explained.
“Our valuation this next year is going to be $95,152 million and we are going to fund the library at $99,910, so just looking at these, we are funding at a max amount through the levy,” Brueggeman said.
The Library board asked Brueggeman, “Currently we are doing the franchise fees, and now we are moving to the levy...Is there a reason why can only be funded from one and not multiple?”
“What we are looking at is, over time, this will allow us to budget better for the library. If valuations go up, we can give the library more of that. Say the valuation went up to 106, (million) there would be more there to fund the library doing it of the valuations. The franchise fees, we have taken from other departments enough. The cemetery is getting $30,000, the airport is getting $20,000. We are having to draw more, just from the electrical. And that’s why we want to pull the franchise fees back to support the cemetery, the airport, the park and rec that has been taken. And then also bring down those so we aren’t transferring $167,000 out of electric, just to support the other departments,” he added.
Mayor Lisa Schmitt said that this also is an effort to stabilize the budget. She said “Seven years ago the budget wasn’t so tight, we were able to move things around, but now its really tight so in order to stabilize it, we had to find a way to stabilize it.”
Councilwoman Kim Bishop added that at several educational events, the council has been made aware that the franchise fees continue to be a valid issue brought to discussion.
“Literally at any point, the state could decide that is not a valid funding source for the city and if that happens, all of those departments get dropped as well. And it’s been very close in the last few discussions as well. So it’s getting tenuous to even be a revenue stream for any department,” Bishop said.
Brueggeman added that in recent legislation, they have seen a 2% cap near passing, and he expects it to be back in the next session, as well as knowing they will be losing 5-10%, possibly even 20% of their equalization funds, and that moving towards the levy is about “looking toward the future, and trying to support everybody with the funds we know we can get.”
When asked by the library board if they are in fact moving from the franchise fees to the property tax levy, Brueggeman said, “Yes, you will be funded through our levy that we have and we will do that 10.5¢ per $100 valuation, which equals the $99,910”
The levy will be used for economic development, the police, and the library moving forward.
Mayor Schmitt explained that the cuts within the departments are necessary, adding that when the state makes cuts, there is no opportunity for “overtime” to make up for it, they are allowed no more money.
The library board asked if the cut needed to be $48,000 or if it could be gradual. Brueggeman responded that if the library needed a specific amount of money, they could bring to the council and it would be their decision.
Mayor Schmitt added that she would like to see more effort. “For me I would need to see more than that, because all I’m seeing right now, in my opinion, is an anti-city campaign. We told you at the last budget season that this was coming. And between now and then, nothing was done.
So some of the stuff that could have been done between then and now.... reach out to the school for an interlocal (agreement), reach out to the hospital for an interlocal(agreement), ....there were some fee based ideas that Derek had given you, and all that could have helped you has been rejected. So for me, if you do come to us and just ask for more money, that would be hard to swallow, because we already tried to help you with all of these ideas, all of which were shutdown. So for me if you’re not helping yourself, if you just want more money, for me it would be a hard pass,” Schmitt said.
Councilwoman Andrea Brueggeman added “In my opinion if you came back with a four year plan and said ‘this is what we can do, this is how we can start charging, this is what we could possibly generate’, not just come with ‘we want another $12,000 this year cause that’s where we are at’..... maybe a three or four year plan that says ‘we can dwindle this down here because we can do this or that’,”
For me I want to know what you’re going to do in the next three or four years that can make this works, that you can collect fees, or what ideas do you have to generate money to sustain where you’re at now, or be close to it?” Andrea Brueggeman said.
Councilman Sam Sims voiced his concerns that began last July when he encouraged the board to get something on the ballot, citing the support of the pool and the nursing home. “You can still put something on for the general election too, and I suggest you put something on the ballot still for the general election because you give the county, the city, you give the people in the community the ability to get a referendum of what they want for the library, from us, from everyone. Yes they’re willing to fund it, yes they’re willing to fund it through sales tax....You could do an interlocal agreement, you could have a combined library that is a county combined library, with our city, in our same building, leave the same levy, the extension of Grant wouldn’t pay a cent more, you could ask the entire county, and hey if they’re using it 50% of the time, you’re funded, you’re good. So there are options.” he said. Later adding, “there are solutions.”
Library board member Penny Lee expressed her frustrations in feeling that she is hearing some of this for the first time, noting the board is mostly new members.
Councilwoman Brueggeman agreed with the frustrations and said it should have been being discussed for a long several years.
Library board member Max Jones asked who was in charge of making the library budget, the council, or the library board.
City Attorney Tawna Holmstedt explained that it is the library’s responsibility to come up with their budget, and the city council’s responsibility to approve it.
Sims added that the situation is frustrating with the turnover in the library board, for them as well because yes they do approve the budget, but they have no control over it beyond that, calling it middle-man management.
“I don’t speak for the other members, I’ve sat with these people (on council)long enough, I can say, There is no one in this room that wants this library to go down,” Andrea Brueggeman said.
“The way I see it, the town already voted for the 10%, and anything the town votes for and supports, we’re going to support it.” Sims said.
The council and library board also discussed potential ballot language for future tax requests, using the community swimming pool as an example of dedicated funding, as well as the possibility of establishing a countywide library partnership.
Superintendent Brueggeman provided the Library Board with a proposed example budget for next year, without the franchise fees, before moving to executive session to discuss library personnel from 7:55 p.m. to 8:50 p.m. and adjourning at 8:51 p.m.
The council and library board are scheduled to meet again at 7:30 p.m. Thursday, June 11, at City Hall to continue discussions regarding library funding and future operations.